The philosophies of men mingled with the philosophies of women.

LDS Church politics in Utah

There are some people who think that the LDS Church should not be allowed to lobby with regards to political issues. I am not one of those people. However, I think there are tactics the church should avoid, or they cross over boundaries with regards to the separation of church and state.

Representative Carl Wimmer with LDS Apostle L. Tom Perry

Carl Wimmer served in the Utah legislature from 2007-2012. This past week he gave some very interesting insights into LDS Church lobbying efforts. He said that “The church is very selective regarding the legislation they engage…” and ” rarely want things badly enough to engage openly.” The reason? “This is due to the fact that because most of Utah’s legislators are LDS members, the majority of legislation already aligns with the LDS Church position without their influence.”

However, the conservative legislator notes that sometimes the church (1) has surprising positions, and (2) the church crosses some ethical lines when lobbying. With regards to the recently passed anti-discrimination bill in Utah, “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints just passed a pro-LGBT piece of legislation in Utah” Wimmer noted on his blog. “Does that sound odd to you? It does to me, but it is essentially true.”

Wimmer names names. “John Taylor and Bill Evans are full-time employees of the LDS Church and their job is to monitor the Utah Government, and to act as the paid lobbyists on behalf of the church. They regularly meet with legislators behind closed doors, (as do other lobbyists, this is nothing nefarious or unusual,) to push the agenda of their employer. ”

He also notes how they talk to LDS legislators.

When the LDS lobbyists contact a legislator, the conversation goes like this:

We are here to discuss such-and-such bill. We have received our orders “directly from the top,” and we want you to vote for this bill.

They mention that they received their orders “from the top,” so that the legislator would know unequivocally that the LDS Church’s First Presidency sent them.

Hi cites some examples of surprising positions of the LDS Church in the legislature. He noted with dismay that the LDS Church has more moderate stances with regards to abortion and sex education. Wimmer was one of the conservative legislators who wanted further restrictions on abortion. According to Wimmer,

Learning how powerful the LDS Church was politically, several pro-life legislators and I set up a meeting in my office with the two LDS Church lobbyists. Our intention was to recruit the LDS Church in the battle for the right-to-life. For weeks we had worked on legislation that would prove to make Utah the leader in the fight against abortion. We presented our idea and expressed our eagerness to have the LDS church help in the fight to pass a bill that had failed the year before. They turned us down flat, telling us that “the First Presidency has made it clear to them that they will not engage on abortion issues.”

The conservative legislator was also upset with the LDS Church’s interference with illegal immigration.

HB116 was an extremely controversial bill dealing with illegal immigration and proposed issuing state worker cards to illegal immigrants. For at least two weeks prior to the final passage of HB116, the two church lobbyists practically lived in the back halls of the state capitol and in the office of house leadership. I was vocally opposed to the legislation, but was still contacted repeatedly by both lobbyists who attempted to change my opposition. The calls became frequent enough from the LDS Lobbyists, that I stopped taking them.

What bothered me most was when my local ecclesiastical leader contacted me and attempted to persuade me to vote for the bill as well. When I asked him, “Who from the Church headquarters had asked you to contact me?” he simply confirmed that he had been asked, but would not say by whom.

The night HB116 was debated for final passage was insane. There was intensity I had never felt before or after on the house floor. It was the intensity that comes only from political bullying, and it killed me to know that this time the “bully” was my own church.

I was approached by a younger representative who was on the verge of tears. He expressed to me that he had just gotten out of a “PPI meeting” and asked if I had had mine yet. I knew what he meant and I was sorry for him.

A legitimate “PPI” or “Personal Priesthood Interview” is conducted within the confines of the LDS Church. It is an ecclesiastical meeting between an LDS leader and a male member under their “authority.” When I was an Elders Quorum President, I held PPI’s with the elders under my charge. A PPI is used to check on the spiritual welfare of the man being interviewed, and to make sure they are on the “straight and narrow.” But that is not what this legislator meant…

What he had just experienced was an intense, closed-door meeting with select members of house leadership and the LDS Church lobbyists who made it abundantly clear that when HB116 came up for a vote, he was to support the bill, period.

Sometimes, if the legislator felt strongly enough about the legislation, they would allow him to vote against it, but ONLY after the bill had the necessary votes recorded to ensure passage. This was the deal this particular representative was under, and both he and I knew it. He was clearly shaken and expressed that he had no idea that his “church would do this kind of thing.” I hurt for him.

House leadership was split on HB116, so when I saw a member of house leadership who I knew was opposed to the bill walk onto the house floor, I went up to him and engaged him in conversation. The following is our word-for-word conversation:

Me: Hey, (name of House leader) how much of what is going on tonight regarding HB116 has to do with the LDS church?

Him: All of it; I hate this.

Me: It’s going to pass isn’t it?

Him: Yes, and in fact if the vote is close, I have to vote for it, I have no choice.”

Me: You had a PPI?

Him: Yep…(walks away).

HB116 passed as the LDS Church lobbyists looked on from the gallery.

I was not in the legislature this year, but the look and feel of the passing of HB116 and the current non-discrimination bill are quite the same. One can only guess how many legislators had “PPI’s” before the vote on the church-endorsed LGBT legislation, but there is no doubt in my mind, that as legislators read this blog, one or more of them will know precisely what I am talking about.

So, what role does the LDS Church really play when it comes to Utah politics? From my experience, it all depends on how badly the church wants a specific piece of legislation passed.

-Carl

It should surprise nobody who frequents this blog, that I am not politically conservative. Part of me is encouraged that the LDS Church is moderate with regards to immigration and abortion. But I do share Representative Wimmer’s concerns with regards to PPI’s over legislative issues. Do you think these PPI’s are a violation of the separation of church and state? Are these PPI’s appropriate?

Share this:

Like this:

Related

Published by Mormon Heretic

Mormon Heretic has been blogging since January 2008 at his own blog, Mormon Heretic. In 2009 he was invited to join Mormon Matters, and joined Wheat and Tares in 2010. He is married with three kids, is active in the LDS Church, a returned missionary, and a member of the Mormon History Association and the John Whitmer Association.
View all posts by Mormon Heretic

Post navigation

43 thoughts on “LDS Church politics in Utah”

Disconcerting.
It makes me wonder how much pressure our British LDS Members of Parliament might be subject to. I believe there are two (Conservative) in this Parliament, and there was one (Labour) in the last. They certainly get wheeled out when it comes to participating in the presentation of the family values award, and that kind of thing.
It also makes me wonder about the withdrawal of a prospective candidate for the upcoming election. The guy was standing for UKIP – not a party a support in any way shape or form, I don’t like them at all – but I had heard that this guy I knew of was standing as a candidate for UKIP, though not in a constituency I would be voting in. Then a few weeks later, I thought I’d look him up, only to find he’d withdrawn for what were described as health and family reasons. I’m now wondering, given the OP, since UKIP has a strong anti-immigrant feel as a party.

I was approached by a younger representative who was on the verge of tears…He was clearly shaken and expressed that he had no idea that his “church would do this kind of thing.”

He would if he had been a liberal in the 70s.

Look, the Church is going be linked to whatever the Utah legislature does, whether they play hardball or not. I don’t like it any more than the rest of you, but working on Capitol Hill (the one in DC), I recognize that this is just how things work. Letting the crazies work their will hurts the Church, not just immigrants and the LGBT community. The Church needs to pick its battles carefully, and make them ones that benefit a lot of people, not just the Church itself. And they need to keep a short leash on the lobbyists, who, I have been told by a reliable source, are not above freelancing on occasion.

If the church is really concerned about how crazy conservative the Utah legislators are, they should keep in mind that it is the church membership in Utah that elects these Tea Party style politicians. You may artificially be able to tamper with legislation on the Hill, but it is just whitening your sepulcher if you don’t adress the problem in your membership.

How you vote is an expression of both your beliefs and your behavior. The church should make its position know to those that it wants to act. I for one am glad the church feels strongly about certain things enough to voice its opinion. In a world of to and fro if you always do what the church wants you will always be on the lords side. Even if the church doesnt get what it wants you will still be on the lords side.

It comes as no surprise the Church actively lobbies in the Utah legislature, or has ‘discussions’ with legislators. But I’ve never heard of a church disciplinary court held because a Utah legislator didn’t vote the way the church wanted him/her to.

I am fine with the Church sending lobbyists and letting people know what the Church’s position is on certain issues. It crosses the line when these politician’s church leaders are lobbying as well. If these politicians really feel like they “have to” vote a certain way, then I would count that as bullying. However, the Carl Wimmer blog is clearly biased information from a man who is angry at the Church for supporting anti-discrimination laws and not pro-life laws. I have a hard time sympathizing with him.

I am with Nate (#5). Coercion is clearly defined as unrighteous dominion in Section 121. The “church” should educate the red-necks in the congregations (so they will elect fewer rednecks to public office), not bully the crazy-conservative office-holders.

These “Tea Party” Republicans (and whatever the label is on the far left for Democrats) have a right to their opinions, but they cannot expect respect and credibility from more educated, more thoughtful/open-minded, more rational people just because they got into office. As the Republican primary campaign gets underway, we are going to be inundated with the vapid rhetoric of Ted Cruz (example: his candidacy announcement speech at Liberty “University”) and his ilk.

Considering that Mr. Winner is a political sore loser and an apostate, I’d not take his anecdotes too seriously.

It doesn’t bother me that the Church employs lobbyists, either directly on its payroll or hiring a firm. As some who THINK they know the Church’s ‘position’ on a particular issue (in many cases, it declines to state one), lobbying can serve to avoid misunderstandings, especially when in the minds of some an LDS politician is looking to the Brethren for marching orders. If there is ANY case where a member was threatened with disciplinary actions for failure to politically “toe the line”, please cite with credible references.

Sheesh, about seven years ago we went through this sort of argument with regard to one “steenkin” proposition, as if 3/4 million LDS in California are disenfranchised by virtue of their membership in the Church! A prominent member, former 49er quarterback (some jibe that he’d never completely recovered from that last hit that ended his career) and his wife displayed a political yard sign contrary to how the Church was encouraging its rank and file to vote and campaign for, and AFAIK they’re still members in good standing if they want to be.

Still, were I to enter politics and attain office, and I were contacted by someone from the Church, I’d thank them for their interest and assure them that I carry out my office IAW the oath that I took for it and within the dictates of my conscience and intellect, but the Church’s position would be but one factor of possibly many in mine decision. If that wouldn’t suffice, I’d just hang up.

I find it unconscionable that any member of the Church should ever feel that his or her membership might be affected by a vote they would take in the Legislature. In this context, I’m not sure that’s what these PPIs are focusing on; they may simply have been pointing out the unlikelihood of the representative’s re-election should he buck the LDS lobbyists. However, I still think the whole thing is disconcerting.

Nothing really surprises me here, but is it too much to ask that the church put the same lobbying effort to the general membership that it gives to the state legislators? If the church is in favor of protecting LGBT from discrimination or bullying, why isn’t that message heard in our congregations?

The cynical answer could be that the church really doesn’t care about the actual issue of discrimination. Rather, having spoken in favor of an anti discrimination bill, the church doesn’t want to look weak if the bill fails.

I wish the church would more publicly admit ownership of its liberal side, and not hide in private PPIs with politicians.

Pretty pathetic state representative if he can’t deal with a paid lobbyist. Sounds like he needs a starter lesson in how government works. Lobbyists lobby. If you don’t want to meet with them then don’t, If you meet with them and don’t want to listen then don’t. If you listen and don’t want to do what they tell you then don’t. They aren’t his priesthood leaders, they are lobbyists doing what they get paid to do which is lobby in the manner they think will get what they are lobbying for. As IDIAT says above (sort of) no one has ever been disciplined by the church for not doing what a paid lobbyist asked them to do.

Some people here need to be reminded of politics and power 101. Of course, the church isn’t going to discipline say Steve Young and his wife for displaying yard signs against their view. That family has a lot of power due to their celebrity and wealth. It is the same reason that arguments that the church must not use coercive tactics because…Harry Reed..are bogus. There are people within the church that that church can’t touch even it wanted to. The story here which seems incredibly plausible and falls into a long line of similar historically documented actions is them flexing their muscle over individuals over whom they have a lot of power. The power is flexed only when absolutely needed and it is done quietly and with plausible deniability. I have no doubt the church would never actually discipline a Utah legislator because of the immediate backlash it would cause. However, it doesn’t have to actually do it. For a Mormon legislator that believes God is keeping track of his obedience to leaders you don’t need formal discipline to throw around weight. Also, keep in mind those lobbyist and the political operatives close the church are well aware that with a few well placed words to the right people in those legislators districts funding and re-election can be easily put in jeopardy. Plus, there are a lot of local soft discipline measures that can be put in place to signal censure.

If you want some easy historical documented proof of similar tactics read the letter to Governor Marion Romney from an apostle where he is warned that his temporal and spiritual life is danger because of his support for MLK. Its a thinly veiled threat that uses the weight of the apostleship. Romney to his credit ignored it. Look at the well documented calls by 70s to raise funds during Prop 8. None of what is reported by Wimmer is inconsistent with these examples or what happened during the ERA (much worse).

It is entirely possible in this story that that the language that referred to these “PPIs” was the legislators themselves tagging the tactic as opposed to a leader calling it a PPI. The fact the church lobbies is understandable. The use of implied priesthood office to do so is directly against D&C 121 and feels completely icky. If they get the legislators’ standing bishops and SP involved it is down right unconscionable. I hope the Utah legislators stand up to this type of thing and see it for the violation it is.

I’ll post this link showing Elder Stapley’s letter (1964) to then Michigan Gov. Romney on the issue of civil rights and the “Negro” (the terminology and condescending tone do seem a tad ‘quaint’ for my tastes) and leave it to the reader to decide if Brother Romney ought to have felt his membership was in jeopardy over his politics.

I’m satisfied that Mitt’s Dad would have reasonably felt no reason to worry about his LDS membership, since he pursued civil rights legislation contrary to what Elder Stapley asserted was the will of the Lord. Probably like what Gov. Romney concluded, I don’t see an imperative that denial of the PH to black males necessitated racial separatism. The only thing I could possibly agree with Elder Stapley about is the wrong of “forcing” racial integration in private matters, and I don’t see that the extent civil rights bills were doing that.

Keep in mind that Delbert Stapley was active in Arizona politics before his call to the Apostleship. At the time (June 1964), then long-time Senator Barry Goldwater was in a political slugfest for the Republican nomination for President, the party then being sharply divided between “Goldwater” conservatives and “Rockefeller” moderates. I can well imagine the Senator placing a call to his LDS acquaintance re: Romney and his ‘liberal’ politics. This all falls well within the realm of Elder Stapley using what little ‘gravitas’ he had to influence his fellow member.

Since Gov. Romney went on with his views re: civil rights and spoke in other ways that would irk both conservatives and Vietnam-era “Hawks” (his comment on the military’s ‘brainwashing’ after he’d toured ‘Nam probably did more to deep-six his Presidential aspirations than anything else), and the very fact that this letter got out to be proudly posted on today’s Internet, I’d say that in practice whatever lobbying and other ‘persuasion’ the Church exercises in political matters doesn’t really amount to a lot. The Church’s focus is and always has been on bringing about the salvation of our Heavenly Father’s children. Compared to that, most if not all politics amounts to the proverbial tempest in a teapot.

Let me be clear. I hate Wimmer’s politics, and I feel bad that he is no longer a Mormon.

Having said that, it is bullsh** to claim he is bitter. I HATE any insinuation that Wimmer “is bitter.” Jared and Douglas, did you read Wimmer’s blog? Was there anything bitter there? (I’ll answer for you–there wasn’t.)

This whole crock of crap that someone can leave the LDS church MUST BE BITTER is a crock of sh** and needs to stop. Argue with his reasoning if you want, but don’t pull out “bitter” or “anti-mormon” or “apostate” unless you can back it up. You’re making crap up. It’s complete BS reasoning and needs to stop.

So to answer your question Jared, no, there is no sign that Wimmer is bitter in the article. I see no reason to call into question Wimmer’s version of the story. If you have reason to disagree, by all means disagree, but don’t make up crap about bitterness or apostate. You two throw those two terms around way too much, and I find such judgments about Wimmer unbecoming of a “so-called” disciple of Christ. Disagree with him, but quit calling him names.

Having defended Wimmer, I now declare that I am grateful he is no longer peddling his ultra-conservative politics in the legislature.

“Pretty pathetic state representative if he can’t deal with a paid lobbyist.”

Ojiisan, that’s not what I am objecting to at all. I am objecting to using PPI’s for political influence. As Alice said, this is unrighteous dominion, and violates the idea of a separation of church and state. I find your strawman argument pathetic.

MH-I’m worried about your health. YOur out burst with things you disagree with is a good example of bitterness.

Please allow others their POV, if for no other reason, than to protect your health and well being. Cool your jets, brother.

I never said he was bitter, I said, Is it possible he is bitter towards the LDS church?

When people go through a crisis of faith they do in many instances deal with aspects of bitterness. Mr Wimmer alluded to this when he wrote:

“I have quickly learned that LDS family and friends will not talk to me about their faith, nor will they ask about mine. A part of this has to do with my in-your-face approach I attempted right after leaving the church, (I don’t recommend that approach, by the way)…”

When someone is in your face, as he admitted, I think bitterness can be part of it.

Bitterness or ill will are manifest by many who leave the church. Go to the website and you will see it in full bloom: Unfriendly feeling; enmity.

How about Steve Benson.

MH, I think it would be interesting to have church members who are serving in the legislature present their views on how the church deals with their power to influence. I wonder what the majority of them would relate.

#20 – MH, don’t put words in my mouth. I never described esterwhile-brother Wimmer (got the sp right this time, dawggonned spell checker!) as “Bitter”, I merely said that his leaving the Church and THEN spinning his yarn about his political arm-twisting make his story rather suspect. As for his supposed ‘conservatism’, that might have actually raised his political worth in mine eyes, though in UT his does this California kid no good (or harm) on the state level.

As I’ve well pointed out in prior postings, the Church’s actual record of influence (as in LACK thereof) and the absence of any meaningful ‘retaliation’ tend to belie Wimmer’s assertion about political arm-twisting. We shall see if he goes on to join the ranks of those that can leave the Church but can’t leave it alone.

The whole point is that these aren’t apostles or priesthood leaders. They are paid lobbyists. So trotting out stories of apostles’ behaviors really isn’t germane to the discussion at all.

#21

And to explain the point of my comment since you so clearly didn’t get it: they aren’t PPIs. They are meetings with lobbyists and if Wimmer cannot tell the difference between a PPI with his priesthood leader and a meeting with a paid lobbyist with a political agenda, then he is, sorry, a pathetic state representative. And if you can’t tell the difference then I would worry about more than your blood pressure.

As for the use of lobbyists, the church has interests that it needs to protect so given the way the political process works they use lobbyists to advance those interests. Why should they forego the use of a legitimate political tool that is part of the accepted system? I’m happy to have a discussion about whether lobbyists should be a part of the system but given they are, it only makes sense for the church to use them.

As for the vitriol in your responses if can’t accept contrary views without blowing a gasket then probably shouldn’t be posting on a blog.

According to the trib article, Wimmer left the church after the events in the OP due to church history and doctrinal issues. I can see his current membership raising flags for bias, but assuming he made everything up would be unwise. Given his blog post, it is clear he is irritated at both the armtwisting he claims to have seen as well as the *lack* of armtwisting on issues he was passionate about. As to whether currently active members would give opinions on lobbying efforts by the church, I would expect to see bias there as well. Given the active role the church has publicly played in politics lately, there is nothing in Wimmer’s account that is particularly surprising to me. Now, whether the armtwisting is actually being done at the behest of the First Pres or if a bunch of middle managers overestimated their positions and took initiative to shape laws using their positions of influence over legislators is a much more important question in my mind.

Count me among those who are glad to see the church lobbying to keep these Tea Party idiots off the ledge, although the tactics do seem to imply (perhaps erroneously) that their church membership hangs in the balance. Then again, why shouldn’t it? They are giving the church a black eye on the public stage, and as we know, that’s the definition of “apostasy.” Obviously, I agree with rah that these clowns are a byproduct of the church, and that reining in members would make this type of tactic less necessary. Maybe that’s a chicken and egg argument, though.

Mostly, though, I was incredibly surprised 25 years ago to discover just how Utah-centric the church was. I grew up being told it was a global church, and where I lived that seemed believable. When I went to Utah for college I quickly saw that it wasn’t really global at all.

If we think of Utah like the Vatican, the problem is that American citizenship has too many benefits to renounce (not that the US would grant them separate sovereign status in the middle of the territorial US anyway). I only hope there’s no secret Swiss Guard.

I suppose my reaction was a bit harsh. Perhaps I should apologize. But let me explain why I had such a harsh reaction.

Orthodox leaning members have no qualms about judging others. “Wimmer is an apostate.” “Wimmer is bitter.” etc. etc. But when the shoe is on the other foot, as it was on the polygamy post, suddenly we get comments about judging too harshly. Jared said “I think those who are judging Joseph Smith so harshly should take a more balanced approach.”

Well, which is it Jared? You’re completely inconsistent. Are you going to judge harshly on Wimmer and mercifully on Joseph? (Obviously yes.) Well you’re a hypocrite. The Orthodox justify leniency on Joseph with comments such as “The second problem with judging humans alleged actions or words, is that we don’t have all the facts. Some think they do, but that largely depends on the source.”

I’m tired of people judging others harshly (apostate, bitter) and then suddenly when the shoe is on the other food you get all merciful. That’s why I blew a gasket.

Ojiisan, If you don’t want to have your comments called “pathetic”, then you probably ought not use the word yourself.

Be consistently merciful when you judge others, or you’re going to get called on the carpet for it. “Matthew 7:2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

Joseph and Carl deserve the same merciful (or harsh) judgment. I’d rather we treated them both with a bit more mercy than some do.

By the way Ojiisan, a bishop is not a “paid lobbyist.” If legislators are getting called into the bishop’s office and instructed how to vote, then once again, your comment above is a pathetic strawman argument.

Sorry don’t know where that came from because I never said I had a problem with my argument being called pathetic because I really could care less. I was referring to your use of bull****, crock of sh** and HATE. Shows a bit of loss of control within the bounds of blog speak wouldn’t you say! Clearly not well reasoned and articulate. Could even be called a pathetic attempt to respond when reason and logic just isn’t there.

And just to be clear since you continue to appear to have a problem understanding the concept, a phone call from a “local ecclesiastical leader” (even if it is a bishop which is not stated in the OP) isn’t a PPI either. And that reference was one line in a lengthy diatribe about PPIs and arm twisting by paid lobbyists so forgive me if I didn’t take time to deal that one line specifically.

What bothered me most was when my local ecclesiastical leader contacted me and attempted to persuade me to vote for the bill as well. When I asked him, “Who from the Church headquarters had asked you to contact me?” he simply confirmed that he had been asked, but would not say by whom.

…

A legitimate “PPI” or “Personal Priesthood Interview” is conducted within the confines of the LDS Church. It is an ecclesiastical meeting between an LDS leader and a male member under their “authority.” When I was an Elders Quorum President, I held PPI’s with the elders under my charge. A PPI is used to check on the spiritual welfare of the man being interviewed, and to make sure they are on the “straight and narrow.” But that is not what this legislator meant…

So you’re telling me that Carl Wimmer is making this up about his “ecclesiastical leader”? If so, (1) what proof do you have? (2) Why would he lie about a meeting that never happened? (3) Why would he say, “there is no doubt in my mind, that as legislators read this blog, one or more of them will know precisely what I am talking about” if he was lying?

I wonder if he was using the term PPI euphemistically. My husband and I sometimes joke about a meeting with an authority figure (particularly a low level one) being a “PPI,” such as a one-on-one meeting at work or an informal pulling aside by the bishop. I can’t imagine we are the only ones who joke about those types of meetings being PPIs. They bear resemblance in that the one who calls the meeting thinks he has some sort of authority or influence and is telling you what to do in that setting, but it’s a short meeting. Anyway, not sure but in reading it I assumed they were using the term PPI in this way.

#39 – not merely euphemistically but also incorrectly. And if he was reasonably active in the Church, he’d know who does PPI, which is either one’s quorum leader or the Bishop, with the purposes being different depending on who is doing the interview. In no case would some paid representative from Salt Lake be doing ANYTHING with relation to any Priesthood function, since that’s the prerogative of the PH holder’s quorum and Ward/Stake leaders. Hence why I questioned erstwhile-Bro. Wimmer’s story. After some 35+ years in the Church, I’ve a few BS detectors with regards to the stories of those that ‘escaped Mormonism’ (gee, you’d think we carted off the Berlin wall brick by brick and erected it about Salt Lake City, LoL).

#39 I appreciate that Wimmer and the other representatives were using the term euphemistically. I am not so certain about MH.

#38

I will try this once more but I expect the result will be the same. The vast majority of your OP was devoted to Wimmer’s discussion of his and other representatives’ experiences in meeting with church lobbyists, in what they euphemistically called PPIs. The part about being contacted by his local ecclesiastical leader was one short paragraph in what otherwise appeared to me to be about pressure from house leadership and church lobbyists.

In fact, Wimmer did not use the term PPI when describing his “contact” with his “local ecclesiastical leader” rather he used it in the context of his meetings with house leadership and church lobbyists. To quote:

“A PPI is used to check on the spiritual welfare of the man being interviewed, and to make sure they are on the “straight and narrow.” But that is not what this legislator meant…
What he had just experienced was an intense, closed-door meeting with select members of house leadership and the LDS Church lobbyists who made it abundantly clear that when HB116 came up for a vote, he was to support the bill, period”

Your question at the end of your OP was:

” But I do share Representative Wimmer’s concerns with regards to PPI’s over legislative issues. Do you think these PPI’s are a violation of the separation of church and state? Are these PPI’s appropriate?”

Since Wimmer used the term PPIs in the context of meetings with house leaders and church lobbyists (but not in the context of his contact with his local ecclesiastical leader, I assumed that when your question referred to his concerns with PPIs that you were using the term as he had i.e. in the context of meetings with house leaders and church lobbyists.

Accordingly, that was the context in which I said that any state representative that couldn’t deal with lobbyists was “pathetic”. The job of a representative is to serve her/his constituents not lobbyists, church or otherwise. In my opening comment I listed a number of ways to deal with them: don’t meet with them, don’t list to them etc. I stand by that position. If I had a representative that told me he was intimidated by lobbyists, church or otherwise, rest assured I would never vote for him again.

I also dealt with what I perceived to be part of the spirit of your initial question which in my mind was whether the church should be involved in lobbying at all. I opined that since it and its members were affected by some pieces of legislation and lobbying was a legitimate part of the political process then the church, like any other organization, civil, religious, conservative or liberal, that is affected by legislation, had the right to, and should, involve lobbyists in trying to ensure that any legislation did not impact them negatively.

In a later post, you raised the question of Wimmer’s comment about “his contact with his local ecclesiastical leader”. It was not clear to me but since he did not say meeting I assumed the contact was a phone call. I do understand what a PPI is. A call from an ecclesiastical leader is not a PPI. The call as described by Wimmer did not appear to me to constitute a PPI. A call from a local ecclesiastical leader telling me who to vote for is not a PPI even if he tells me I’m going to hell if I don’t vote for a particular candidate. I don’t think it is any different when the call is to a representative. In this case Wimmer didn’t even say indicate the local ecclesiastical leader had done anything of that sort. The phrase Wimmer used was “attempted to persuade me”. Given the tenor of Wimmer’s blog it would seem reasonable to assume that had any threats of that, or any other, nature been issued Wimmer would have detailed them. Since he did not it would seem reasonable to assume they were not.

At no time did I suggest that the contact had not happened so I don’t know where your questions in #38 came from. I merely said even if it did happen it did not constitute a PPI.

As for his comment that “there is no doubt in my mind, that as legislators read this blog, one or more of them will know precisely what I am talking about”. I have spoken with a good friend who was a state representative for years and is now in the senate and he advised that the church is no better or worse than any other lobbyist and despite all his years in politics in Utah no one has ever told him he’s going to hell because of the way he is, or is not, voting.

Hawk, I don’t think Wimmer was using the term euphemistically. After all, he explained in detail what the term was. He indicated that he was an active Elder’s quorum president, so Douglas, he definitely knows what the term meant having been an active EQ pres, and probably explained it to any evangelicals that might read his blog and not know what a PPI was. In short, it doesn’t sound to me like he was joking.

Ojiisan, in your analysis, you seemed to have neglected the beginning where Wimmer said “What bothered me most was when my local ecclesiastical leader contacted me and attempted to persuade me to vote for the bill as well.”

So in short, I dispute that Wimmer is only using PPI in the context of house leadership. Maybe you’re right, but I don’t think so. If it was a phone call from Bishop/SP, it seems strange to call this a PPI (as you freely admit.) I just think such contact is inappropriate, and I wouldn’t call this as lobbying in the traditional sense. It seems more like an inappropriate influence of church in state government. I don’t think anyone would like this if we were talking about Catholics instead of Mormons.

#42 – Ok, the sad thing is, he doesn’t need to spin yarns or exaggerate. Does the Church exert undue influence on its members, especially those that serve in politics? It depends on whether you consider that they have ANY reason to either (1) take a public position or (2) speak privately to politicians, either via General Authorities or lobbyists, about issues the Church is concerned about.

Since it appears that even very faithful members will do IAW their views and not necessarily as ‘dictated’ by one or more Brethren from Salt Lake (ibid, the George Romney and Civil Rights issue previously cited), and not only not endure either Church discipline or even being ‘damned with faint praise (Bro. Romney was a Regional Rep once his political career was done, hardly a calling for someone out of favor), I’d say the answer is a resounded, “NO”.

Another case in point where in time the Brethren show that they had it right all along: Remember the MX missile and the plan to build a ‘racetrack’ to shuttle missile-carrying rail cars in Eastern NV and Western UT? The Church spoke out against it, for seemingly parochial and NIMBY reasons. Many that I worked with in thought ill of the Church for this reason (as if they needed any). What was not realized at the time was the development of the Trident D5 SLBM as a credible alternative in the nuclear ‘triad’ to land-based ICBMs (initial strike capability against targets requiring high accuracy). This rendered unnecessary spending billions of hard-earned taxpayer dollars on tearing up the desert , placing rail lines and missile bunkers which themselves created tempting targets for a Soviet first strike. Some ten years after the hullabaloo about the MX (which is now RETIRED), the Berlin Wall came down, followed by the dissolution of the Soviet “Evil Empire” only two years hence. Do I believe that the Church’s stance did all that? Certainly not. Do I think they were right to take a position? If you don’t like the idea of the Wasatch Front being in the direct path of fallout from a Soviet Strike some 200 miles west; well, call it parochialism or NIMBY, but the Church leaders are US citizens with voting rights as well. I would see no issue with then-president Kimball contacting LDS members of Congress and expressing his views.